Bullshit. The company that can cure a major cancer type will make money hand over fist for years. Given society's emphasis on short term profits the executives and investors will happily walk away with billions before any patents run out. There will also always be something else to cure especially since almost every cancer is different. if you cure cancer 'a' then someone might live long enough to get cancer type 'b' and pay you again.

Pretty similar. Also similar to tantrums thrown by the other side 4 and 8 years ago and again 12 years ago on the dem side. There be drama queens everywhere. My favorite was probably anti-Obamacare threats to move to Canada. Someone didn't think that one through.

It's not just the newer models. There are a lot of older Trump voters forwarding around the same garbage. I'd love to see some sort of "that's bullshit" flagging, but no one would ever trust it from a single source. You'd need at least several competing sites. Maybe facebook could just add those flags w links to external sites about the "fact". Then there's at least a slim chance of impartial flagging?

The polls were off by a fairly normal amount. People treated a 3-4% majority off he popular vote as an absolute prediction of victory. That's garbage. Polling sucked as much as it often sucks. An error of 2ish% has no consequence if the polls show you 10 point up. If you're only in 3-4% that's a completely different story.

I'm completely with you up till the statisticians needing to get new jobs. Silver gave about a 1/3 chance of trump winning. The polls were off by only a couple points and 538 (mostly Silver) pointed out a number of times that the election was still in the normal polling error range. In fact the polls were closer here than in other recent events (brexit for one). I don't know how much clearer he could have been that this wasn't a done deal. It seems like most of the complaints people are leveling at why polling failed were things specifically called out before the election: must model states not just popular vote, states are correlated, polling errors are commonly in the couple point ballpark, etc.

A 1/3 chance is a pretty big chance especially for an outcome that supporters see as such a catastrophe. That's two rounds in a revolver for Russian roulette. Not a good bet.

Honestly I'd go to a Trump rally just to see the show but I'd never vote for the man. How many people show up isn't a perfect reflection of voting preference. I wouldn't bother going to a Clinton rally because I already know enough about her to know I don't really want to vote for her either. Luckily(?) if my anti-trump vote matters here in South Carolina he's already lost the country in a landslide.

The poster is referring to risk compensation. Multiple studies show that with the introduction of abs brakes people follow more closely. Similar things are observed with seat belts and some people argue w bike helmets. Check out the examples section of the Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Interestingly people may actually be pretty good at the risk evaluation since the fatal accidents are still reduced even w the increase in risky behaviors.

Check out my description of the FDA software approval process a couple comments up in this thread, but in our case, no the FDA does not run the software directly. You provide reams of documentation regarding tests you've run or had third parties run, documentation showing that you can trace failures back to faults, and documentation demonstrating that you've thought of the various ways the device can fail. I don't know how the regulation of a blood testing device would differ, but I bet it would be similar.